Green(er) Towing... fuel choices?

[Andrew Gibbens]

The Mail isn't a junk rag, but it's certainly not a heavyweight (the usual quote is that it's for people who want to think it's a heavyweight!). For all journalists, there is only a story if you take one side - a balanced view doesn't sell papers.

I would love to find a reliable source of information on whole-life costs and pollution, but I don't think they exist - even the Greenpeaces of this world seem only interested in dramatic current issues. Do I believe the batteries in a hybrid are a good thing for the planet? Doubtful. Will the hybrid ever get its first set of batteries replaced? Given the lump sum cost, it's doubtful, in which case making a whole hybrid for just 8-10 years' use isn't very green.

It's interesting that in Europe, hybrids don't seem to show anything like the benefit that they seem to in North America - possibly because we drive more aggressively, as in braking and accelerating more, and cruising less. In general a diesel Golf seems to get better mileage than a Prius, if driven Euro-normally. Pussy-footing, I got 58mpg(US) out of a diesel Golf recently!

As a recent returnee to (pedal) cycling, one nice green question is are bicycles better for the environment than cars? It's actually not a foregone conclusion as the average bicycle uses quite a bit of energy to make, but then spends all its life in a garage. One estimate I've seen is that the average bike does less than 50 miles in its life and, if so, not buying a bike and using an existing car would be better. It shows there are no simple straightforward answers on this subject!

Anyway, aren't fiberglass trailers about the greenest thing around? Low aerodynamic drag and low weight mean less energy is used to tow them than anything other than a pop-up, and a thirty year lifespan that eliminates the energy needed to build a replacement is even more important. The only thing greener would be to stay at home.

Andrew

[peterh]

Europe gets a sweet version of the new Civic with a turbodiesel. I've read very favorable reports about it. Do we get it here? Nope!

The biggest gripe about the hybrids I have is the environmental cost of that hulking battery. I'll dig up a somewhat sensationalist article about the nickel plant in Canada as a factor in that. Economically they make no sense, either - you will never save enough on gas to recoup the cost of regular battery replacement.
Hybrids are OK in the city where they can recapture some of the energy normally lost to braking but on the highway they make no sense, IMO. You're left with an undersized engine dragging that heavy battery pack along for the ride.

I love the Jetta and Beetle turbo diesels! But I like E-85 solutions even better. Biodiesel mixtures over B-20 gel at freezing temperatures, and I'd really rather get the lion's share of my fuel from non-fossil-fuel, non-import sources.

As for the disadvantages of a heavy battery pack in a hybrid, that's not as much of an issue as you might think. Once you're on a level road at freeway speeds the majority of the energy you expend goes into overcoming wind resistance, not hauling the weight of your vehicle around. It's one of Newton's basic law of physics: a body in motion will remain in motion at a constant speed and direction until some opposite force is applied (paraphrased). That opposite force is wind resistance (and, to a lesser degree, the rolling resistance of your tires), which increases at the square of your speed, meaning it takes four times as much energy overcome wind resistance at 60MPH than it does at 30MPH regardless of your vehicle's weight.

The main cost of the battery's weight is in accelerating that weight up to your desired speed, and some of that energy is recaptured by the regenerative brakes, which charge the batteries by converting mechanical energy (speed) into electrical power and storing it in the batteries.

As for the undersized engine, you're absolutely correct. If you spend most of your time cruising at freeway speeds on level roads, a hybrid does you little good. If, on the other hand, you drive in cities or in hill country, the regenerative brakes and batteries add considerable efficiency into the system by allowing you to draw energy from the batteries while accelerating or hill-climbing instead of having to have a larger engine that consumes more fuel in all driving conditions just so you have more power to accelerate from stop signs, pass cars, or climb hills.

I've read about the problems with Canada's nickle mines, too. All the mining industries have problems, whether we're mining oil, coal, metals, or gemstones. As for nickle, it's the second most common element on earth and it's easier to process than iron, too (iron is more highly reactive); the only reason nickle (and many other) mining operations are so dirty is they haven't been forced to clean up their act. The sulpher dioxide emissions, for example, are due to burning cheaper high-sulpher coal in their smelters; they could dramatically reduce their emissions by burning low-sulpher coal.

--Peter

[Joe MacDonald]

Peter, better do some research on our nickel mines, our smelters run on electricity and natural gas, not coal.

and we meet some of the toughest standards in North America.
We are ISO 9001, and ISO 14001 compliant.

[Byron Kinnaman]

Peter, better do some research on our nickel mines, our smelters run on electricity and natural gas, not coal.

and we meet some of the toughest standards in North America.
We are ISO 9001, and ISO 14001 compliant.

Both of those documents (ISO 9001 and 14001) are not emission standards. They are management system documents. I don't have much experience with 14001, but I'm very well aware of the requirements of 9001.

That's not to say that emission starndards aren't being met.

[Brian B-P]

...We looked at the Prius and Civic Hybrid prior to buying the gas Civic. The hybrids are stellar for in-city driving and really do get pretty close to their advertised 50mpg under those conditions. If you drive at 53 mph you will also realize 50 mpg highway with the 1,000 cc gas engines that they have...

The 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid Specifications indicate a 1339 cc (1.3 L), 110 horsepower engine. This is certainly more than 1,000 cc, and about 50% more power than my perfectly adequate 1984 Tercel had. If the electric system all died, the remaining gasoline drivetrain would provide performance that we would have been satisfied with a generation ago - we're getting very spoiled.

Similarly, the Prius has a 1497 cc (1.5 L) engine. In this case, it only has 76 hp because it is optimized for economy, and the design is more dependent on the electric components. In fact, the transmission system fundamentally integrates an electric motor and generator, and is inoperable without them; the Honda design is more of an add-on approach. This is not a criticism, just an explanation of why it is not possible to say what the Prius would be like without the hybrid component.

I agree with the relevant point, which is that any improvement in highway fuel economy in this cars due to the hybrid design comes from allowing the use of an engine which is [b]more optimal for the sustained moderate power demand of highway cruising. This doesn't seem like a great match with towing... thus a limitation in the advantage which might be expected from going hybrid in the tug.

Both sets of specifications are for U.S. models, since that's where most FiberglassRV members live. Earlier versions of both models had different engines, but the Prius was certainly never a one-litre, and I don't believe the Civic was. The now-defunct little Honda Insight coupe engine might have been as small as one litre.

[Brian B-P]

...the only reason nickle (and many other) mining operations are so dirty is they haven't been forced to clean up their act. The sulpher dioxide emissions, for example, are due to burning cheaper high-sulpher coal in their smelters; they could dramatically reduce their emissions by burning low-sulpher coal.

In about four minutes of research I found the air and sulphur dioxide emission sections of Inco's 2004 Environment, Health & Safety report. It appears that burning cheap coal is not the cause of the problem, and I think Cdn$845 million is a significant expenditure towards better technology to control the problem. I don't think I am sufficiently informed or qualified to judge whether the situation is acceptable (although I am confident I'm better in both respects than the Daily Mail staff), but I'm not about to avoid nickel on an environmental basis.

Now here's a relevant [b]material issue: our trailers reduce energy and other resource use, compared to some alternatives (such as typical motorhomes) in two ways, by virtue of being trailers made of structural fiberglass shells:

1. as trailers, they can continue for decades in effective service without needing replacement due to mechanical breakdown (the trailer advantage); and,
2. they don't rot or corrode (the bodies, anyway), also avoiding replacement (the fiberglass advantage).

The nasty part comes when it really is the end of the road: if the shell is destroyed (such as in a collision) or it just makes sense to go to a new unit for a better shape, superior insulation, or whatever, the material's [b]recyclability is poor. Metals can be melted down and purified (huge fractions of steel, aluminum, and lead - for instance - are routinely and economically recycled), many plastics can be melted and formed into other products (although of lower grade if the material is not kept pure), and glass is trivial to remelt and reuse. In contrast, I think a lump of glass-reinforced polyester with foam or carpet glued to the inside is doomed to become landfill. Am I mistaken?

[Joe MacDonald]

25 years ago, Sudbury and area was a black hole, an eyesore of unbelievable proportions.
it was so desolate, the NASA astronauts did some training up here.
through intensive emission reductions, process improvements and huge efforts at re-greening, our district is now once again a gren and blue jewel. it isn't perfect, but it is getting very nice.

ISO 14001 does have a section dealing with refuse, waste and pollution controls.

Sorry if I sounded snotty, that isn't what I intended.



Joe

[Byron Kinnaman]

ISO 14001 does have a section dealing with refuse, waste and pollution controls.

Sorry if I sounded snotty, that isn't what I intended.
Joe

I didn't think you came across as "snotty" or any other negative. I just felt that there was a bit of a misunderstanding what ISO documents are and what they do. Both documents are management documents. These management documents generally are the how you're going to meet the requirements of customers (ISO9001) and environmental laws (ISO 14001).

[peterh]

Peter, better do some research on our nickel mines, our smelters run on electricity and natural gas, not coal.

and we meet some of the toughest standards in North America.
We are ISO 9001, and ISO 14001 compliant.

Oops & Ouch! Joe is quite right.

INCO, which operates the Sudbury plant, does run fossil-fuel-fired generating stations for some of its smelters, but the Sudbury plant is not one of those operations.

Reading again and more closely, the Sudbury copper and nickel seam, a deposit likely left by a large & ancient meteor collision, is particularly high in sulpher. When released as sulpher gas during smelting it combines with oxygen to form sulpher dioxide. Though they've cut emissions to 1/6th the levels seen in the late 80s, the Sudbury smelter is still the single largest point emission source for Sulpher Dioxide on the planet.

--Peter

[peterh]

You know what's really neat? We may not all agree on how to be environmentally friendly, but we all seem to agree that taking a more environmentally friendly approach is important.

--Peter

[Roger H]

You know what's really neat? We may not all agree on how to be environmentally friendly, but we all seem to agree that taking a more environmentally friendly approach is important.

--Peter

Peter, what's really interesting to me is how many ways there are and how many different facets of modern life need to be cleaned up. Of course, no one agrees to what extent various things need to be done, but we seem to all recognize that most of them are problems.

Roger

[Roger H]

The 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid Specifications indicate a 1339 cc (1.3 L), 110 horsepower engine. This is certainly more than 1,000 cc, and about 50% more power than my perfectly adequate 1984 Tercel had. If the electric system all died, the remaining gasoline drivetrain would provide performance that we would have been satisfied with a generation ago - we're getting very spoiled.

... but the Prius was certainly never a one-litre, and I don't believe the Civic was. The now-defunct little Honda Insight coupe engine might have been as small as one litre.

Brian... my "one liter" comment was to indicate a smaller engine (as compared to my 6.8L V10) than the 1.8L engine offered in the gas models; not to be precise about engine size. FWIW, the 1.8L engine is now a 140hp wonder, and the current Civic is almost exactly the size of the '87 Accord I had several years ago...

But... since you opened the barn door... engine size isn't all that relevent in determining either the amount of power a specific vehicle has or estimating what kind of gas mileage it can achieve. As I've said before, I can nearly eek out as good of gas mileage figures from my Excursion with it's 6.8L V10 as I've gotten from a 3.0L V6 Toyota truck. Gearing is significant, but the bottom line is horsepower to weight ratio. Efficient use of power is what moves a car down the road, and horsepower, along with aerodynamics and gearing, really determines gas mileage by limiting how hard the engine works.

Without doing the math on HP/weight ratios, and JUST on engine size alone... the original 1973 Civic had a whopping 1169cc 50 hp in-line four (not much more than a liter, BTW). The 1975 Honda Civic CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion) had a 1488 cc 53 hp in-line four. Both had curb weights of 1500 lbs.

The Civic Hybrid is dragging around 2875 lbs (curb weight) with that 1339cc 110 hp engine. My '06 Civic EX loaded is still lighter than the Hybrid at 2807 curb weight with the 140hp 1.8L. The weight to horsepower ratio on the Hybrid is very similar to the original Civics which were underpowered when they were introduced. Thy Hybrid, while not exactly sluggish, isn't exactly a powerhouse either. My loaded Civic EX is surprisingly snappy in comparison.

I had a roommate years ago who had a '75 CVCC and I was always amazed at how sluggish it was in comparison to my '74 Mitsubishi powered Dodge Colt (which was a piece of junk in it's own right... but that's another discussion).

Roger

[Lee Hillsgrove]

You know what's really neat? We may not all agree on how to be environmentally friendly, but we all seem to agree that taking a more environmentally friendly approach is important.

--Peter

Agreed!

As to sluggish cars - try driving one of the A2 series ('85 - '92) of VW Jettas with the normally aspirated 1.6 diesel. 52 hp!
If nothing else, it teaches you the concept of consevation of momentum, and how to plan a passing maneuver well in advance!


(edited to fix model years)

[Andrew Gibbens]

You know what's really neat? We may not all agree on how to be environmentally friendly, but we all seem to agree that taking a more environmentally friendly approach is important.

That's the positive view, Peter. The related but not-so-positive view is that nearly everyone agrees that an environmentally friendly approach is needed - but they think that they themselves have pretty much achieved that already, and that it's what you and I do that needs changing......

Each of us picks the good things that we already do and is happy to explain that if everyone behaved like them we wouldn't have a problem. But we rarely look at the bad things we do.

As to sluggish cars - try driving one of the A2 series ('85 - '92) of VW Jettas with the normally aspirated 1.6 diesel. 52 hp!

Pah! You are joking, surely? That's a powerhouse.

I used to own a Citroen 2CV, with all of 32hp. Maximum speed: 69mph. Cruising speed: 69mph (gradient permitting).
http://www.citroen.mb.ca/cItROeNet/passeng...2cv/2cv-14.html

Andrew

[Brian B-P]

Roger, I agree that the exact engine size isn't really important; I would have said "very small" instead of "1,000 cc"...

I realize today's hybrid sedans are heavier than the subcompacts of the 1970's. In using my Tercel for comparison I realize that it was lighter than the Civic hybrid, but the power-to-weight ratio is still about the same. I never held up the flow of traffic with that Tercel, and I still maintain that even in common sedans we have more performance available to us than we ever have before... and don't need it. Just like people who drive knobby-tired 4X4 trucks to work and the shopping mall - and never off road - we and the environment pay for unnecessary and unused capabilities.

Roger is also completely correct about the importance - or rather the lack of importance - of displacement. Even peak horsepower is not very meaningful by itself to fuel economy, since some engines are designed to run at a large percentage of peak power efficiently, while others (usually much lighter per peak horsepower) should run under more moderate load, and with the peak expected to be used only for brief periods.

It's all about matching the full range of engine characteristics to the job. That's why a small passenger car towing a two-ton trailer and a three-ton SUV pulling a tiny egg are both unlikely to be efficient combinations, even if the vehicle is well-suited to its other uses.

[Brian B-P]

... they think that they themselves have pretty much achieved that already, and that it's what you and I do that needs changing....

There's always a risk in quoting part of a statement for reference that it will be taken out of context, but this is one that has truly broad applicability - way beyond environmental issues!

[Lee Hillsgrove]

Here's a good paper by a professor at UNH, for anyone interested:

Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae

Feel free to take the political views in the first paragraph as you will.

[John Perry]

Here's a good paper by a professor at UNH, for anyone interested:

Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae

Feel free to take the political views in the first paragraph as you will.

Interesting paper but impractical. How long will it take the Sierra Club and other enviromental radicals to find pollutants in biodiesel? Do you think the enviromentalists will allow desert habitat to turned onto seas of algae just to benefit mere human beings and the United States?
Someone will complain about pollutants in biodiesel just as they have ethanol. A mouse or some other insignificant rodent will be classified as endangered and have more value than we humans when a developer wants to build an algae pond in the desert.

John

[CD Smith]

It would be more practical and less poluting if they used the algae to generate hydrogen for automobiles and trucks instead of diesel.

We will become a hydrogen based energy society sooner or later and as always the Japanese will be the leader of this evolution.

[Byron Kinnaman]

It would be more practical and less poluting if they used the algae to generate hydrogen for automobiles and trucks instead of diesel.

We will become a hydrogen based energy society sooner or later and as always the Japanese will be the leader of this evolution.

At this time there is a large use of fossil fuels to extract hydogen. The entire debate about hydrogen fuels doesn't take into account the cost of both money and polution to extract hydrogen. I wouldn't like to drive around with a tank of hyrodgen on board either, it's way to volatile. Leaks could be a real problem. You've all seen the clips of the Hindenburg, that's hydrogen for you.

Something safer to haul around would be much better, like biodiesel.

Also I don't think algae will do the work to extract hygrogen from anything.

Dilithium crystals are the answer.